Cosmology Theory

[bechcube]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Clearly you missed my point.Lets try this - the volume of 10^-50 ccm is based on nothing physical.&nbsp;Your number of 10^50 JAH is based on nothing physical.You picked those 2 numbers because the cube root of the quotient equals the&nbsp;Plank Length.&nbsp; There must be some PHYSICAL REASON for picking those numbers or the rest of the calculations are just so much drivelAnd to top it all off the cube root of 10^-100 does not even equal the Planck Length.You should learn some real physics, it is much more interesting than this woo-woo stuff.&nbsp; <br />Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>origin:</p><p>take the cube root on your calculater and tell me your results.<br /></p>

 

[origin]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>origin:take the cube root on your calculater and tell me your results. <br />Posted by bechcube</DIV></p><p>I get a number.&nbsp; The number is 4.64 x 10^-34.&nbsp; This particular number is about 3 times smaller than the planck length.</p><p>What is the physical significance of this number?</p><p>What is the physical significance of 10^50.</p><p>What is the physical significance of 10^-50.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[origin]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Heheh! I laughed out loud when I saw you phrase it like that! I found myself wondering if it was more relevent if I am not a physicist, or if I am not sane... &nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV><br /><br />Glad you liked it,&nbsp;I was a bit uncomfortable putting words in your mouth so to speak...&nbsp; Like several here I thought your post was well written - regardless if a certain&nbsp;individual (who will remain unnamed)&nbsp;was not able to follow it.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bechcube]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I get a number.&nbsp; The number is 4.64 x 10^-34.&nbsp; This particular number is about 3 times smaller than the planck length.What is the physical significance of this number?What is the physical significance of 10^50.What is the physical significance of 10^-50. <br />Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>origin:</p><p>Your analysis is true when accepting the coefficient 1.6.</p><p>However, my calculation is based on 1x10>-33 1/3 which my theory presents as the more correct value of the Plank length.</p><p>Further, this constant produces very close but more accurate values for the standard constants, that is, mass of the electron, proton and neutron.&nbsp;</p><p>Sure, they are slightly different than those calculated using the&nbsp;1.6</p><p>coefficient but that is the entire purpose of the theory.</p><p>Why 10>50 and 10>-50? These numbers fit the perfect isosceles triangle having 10>50 at each junction and they fit the diameter of the circular strings or equator of the JAH, 1x10>-33cm.&nbsp;A circular string deletes the need for the fanciful 11 dimensions created by a linear string.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p>

 

[bechcube]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Wrong.&nbsp; There is no edge to be close to.&nbsp; There is only an apparent 'edge' of the OBSERVABLE universe.That is only if your belief is correct about and edge moving out from a center, which all sane physicists and speedfreak do not agree withHe did not support it, you simply misunderstood - what a shock. Could you support the contention that galaxies are continuosly be formed throughout the universe?The ONLY galaxies which are NOT moving away from us are the ones that are very close to us and we are interacting with, which supports that theory that the universe (ie space) is expanding and there is no center (or edge).No, really wrong!&nbsp; <br />Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>Sorry! Who is writing and to whom?</p><p>Anyway, many galaxies are detected moving tangiential to the Milky Way motion.</p><p>Yet, they all, on average, move away from us and towards the observed edge of the universe.<br /></p>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There is an edge to the observable universe, as light has only had 13.7 billion years in which to travel, and light travels at a finite speed. But we think the edge is relative to the observer. <br />Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV></p><p>Be careful with terminology here.&nbsp; That is as far as you can see because light can have traveled no further since time zero.&nbsp; But it is not more an edge (because that is as far as you can see) than the horizon is the edge of the Earth.</p><p>So far as anyone knows, and so far as the model used for a description of space-time the universe is a manifold without boundary -- no edge.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bechcube]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Be careful with terminology here.&nbsp; That is as far as you can see because light can have traveled no further since time zero.&nbsp; But it is not more an edge (because that is as far as you can see) than the horizon is the edge of the Earth.So far as anyone knows, and so far as the model used for a description of space-time the universe is a manifold without boundary -- no edge.&nbsp; <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Dr. Rocket:</p><p>What you say may be true for your accepted theory of the universe but common decency requires serious debaters to not demean or make fun of the opposition. Otherwise all advancements in science would have been delayed.&nbsp;. If you look back in history, there&nbsp;were scientist who made fun of, rather than presenting realistic opposition argument and they were sometimes proved wrong. So get serious! I am not hearing realistic opposition. Quote your beliefs not someone else. One example is the theory of Branes. It predicts that when two flat surface universes&nbsp;or Branes have one area protruding from&nbsp;one,&nbsp;it will collide with onother Brane and create a "Big Bang"</p><p>But what if there are more than one protrusion, will there be multiple "Bangs"?</p><p>If so where are they? I do not make fun of this theory but I do have this question to present. That is real scientific debate.<br /></p>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Be careful with terminology here.&nbsp; That is as far as you can see because light can have traveled no further since time zero.&nbsp; But it is not more an edge (because that is as far as you can see) than the horizon is the edge of the Earth.So far as anyone knows, and so far as the model used for a description of space-time the universe is a manifold without boundary -- no edge.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Yes of course, I should have been clearer in defining what the <em>"observable"</em> universe actually means. The horizon of the Earth is a <em>great</em> analogy (which I intend to use in future - thank you)!</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Quote your beliefs not someone else.</DIV></p><p>Before trying to define your beliefs (and I am not sure beliefs is the right word, as science isn't about "believing", it is about coming to conclusions based on evidence) you should understand the mainstream view. A lot of people have been looking into this subject already, for hundreds or thousands of years. We have the accumilated knowledge of mankind to look at, should we ignore it? If everyone ignored that which had gone before, we would not have gotten very far. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> One example is the theory of Branes. It predicts that when two flat surface universes&nbsp;or Branes have one area protruding from&nbsp;one,&nbsp;it will collide with onother Brane and create a "Big Bang"But what if there are more than one protrusion, will there be multiple "Bangs"?If so where are they? I do not make fun of this theory but I do have this question to present. That is real scientific debate. <br /> Posted by bechcube</DIV></p><p>Other "protrusions" would be elsewhere on the Brane, I would think. Unless you are talking of multiple protrusions in the <em>same</em> place on the Brane (how would <em>that</em> work?). Therefore any other universes would be separate "Brane-worlds". If we can only see a small part of <em>our</em> whole universe how do you expect us to be able to see a separate universe?</p><p>The bottom line for your "Theory of Everying" is it is up to you to prove its worth. Is it better at making predictions about what we <em>should</em> see than the current mainstream theory? By better predictions I mean either predict more things we can check, or predict the things we already checked with greater accuracy. That is the only way your theory would ever be taken seriously.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Dr. Rocket:What you say may be true for your accepted theory of the universe but common decency requires serious debaters to not demean or make fun of the opposition. Otherwise all advancements in science would have been delayed.&nbsp;. If you look back in history, there&nbsp;were scientist who made fun of, rather than presenting realistic opposition argument and they were sometimes proved wrong. So get serious! I am not hearing realistic opposition. Quote your beliefs not someone else. One example is the theory of Branes. It predicts that when two flat surface universes&nbsp;or Branes have one area protruding from&nbsp;one,&nbsp;it will collide with onother Brane and create a "Big Bang"But what if there are more than one protrusion, will there be multiple "Bangs"?If so where are they? I do not make fun of this theory but I do have this question to present. That is real scientific debate. <br />Posted by bechcube</DIV><br /><br />I saw nothing in what you quoted from Dr. Rocket that was demaning in any way. </p><p>To be honest, your ideas appear to have no foundation in physics, just number picked from the air. Bringing in isocoles triangles? Please...</p><p>It's hard to even make fun, or provide opposition to such a "theory"</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[origin]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>origin:Your analysis is true when accepting the coefficient 1.6.However, my calculation is based on 1x10>-33 1/3 which my theory presents as the more correct value of the Plank length.Further, this constant produces very close but more accurate values for the standard constants, that is, mass of the electron, proton and neutron.&nbsp;Sure, they are slightly different than those calculated using the&nbsp;1.6coefficient but that is the entire purpose of the theory.Why 10>50 and 10>-50? These numbers fit the perfect isosceles triangle having 10>50 at each junction and they fit the diameter of the circular strings or equator of the JAH, 1x10>-33cm.&nbsp;A circular string deletes the need for the fanciful 11 dimensions created by a linear string.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by bechcube</DIV><br /><br />I was going to write some sort of involved response, but what is the point?&nbsp; You have no idea what you are talking about and&nbsp;don't even realize the implications of saying things like the mass of the electrons and protons currently used are wrong.&nbsp; You appear to&nbsp;have delusions of grandeur - I think you should just go ahead and enjoy your belief that you have the ANSWER.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bechcube]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Clearly you missed my point.Lets try this - the volume of 10^-50 ccm is based on nothing physical.&nbsp;Your number of 10^50 JAH is based on nothing physical.You picked those 2 numbers because the cube root of the quotient equals the&nbsp;Plank Length.&nbsp; There must be some PHYSICAL REASON for picking those numbers or the rest of the calculations are just so much drivelAnd to top it all off the cube root of 10^-100 does not even equal the Planck Length.You should learn some real physics, it is much more interesting than this woo-woo stuff.&nbsp; <br />Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>origin:</p><p>Are you arguing that 1x10>{(-331/3)+(-331/3+)+(-331/2)} does not = 1x10>-100?<br /></p>

 

[bechcube]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>SpeedFreek.Your argument is absolutely correct.&nbsp; It is logical, it is valid, and it is basically the argument that is often used by professional cosmologists.You have no chance whatever of convincing Bechcube.&nbsp; Logic and physics are not the point when one's mind is made up, one does not wish to be confused by facts, one's grasp of physics is minimal, and one is being driven by the delusion of having made a revolutionary discovery.&nbsp; Rational argument does not affect the irrational. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p>Dr. Rocket: I trust that you do have the education to earn the title you are using. If not, it would explain why you have difficulty grasping elemental ideas.</p><p>I suspect that you are&nbsp;a proponent&nbsp;of the theory of evolution. This theory purposes that all creation evolves into survival of the fittest. If you are, have you considered the question of why, if everything evolves, that at a distant of 13-14 bly's the creations are the same as in all other areas of the universe?</p><p>Further, it has been noted that my arguments are "Woo,Woo, etc..</p><p>However, my post is presented as a theory, not fact and therefore does not require proof by the initiator of the theory. That is left open to other educated interested scientist to delve into. Example: Dr. Einstein proposed that light curved when passing through an area of space-time which&nbsp;was allegedly&nbsp;curved by the presence of mass.</p><p>It was a theory, not a fact until a scientist measured the light during an eclipse.<br /></p>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I suspect that you are&nbsp;a proponent&nbsp;of the theory of evolution. This theory purposes that all creation evolves into survival of the fittest.</DIV></p><p>Well, I am. The theory of the evolution of species applies only to life and it is the survival of the <em>best fitted</em> to their environment. </p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you are, have you considered the question of why, if everything evolves, that at a distant of 13-14 bly's the creations are the same as in all other areas of the universe?</DIV></p><p>If you are now referring to how galaxies "evolve", which is a different kind use of the word evolution, then they evolve subject to the laws of physics, which are assumed to be the same throughout the universe. You might think of it like this - they "evolve" in the manner that best fits the laws of physics in their environment, the universe.<br /> </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Further, it has been noted that my arguments are "Woo,Woo, etc..However, my post is presented as a theory, not fact and therefore does not require proof by the initiator of the theory. That is left open to other educated interested scientist to delve into. Example: Dr. Einstein proposed that light curved when passing through an area of space-time which&nbsp;was allegedly&nbsp;curved by the presence of mass.It was a theory, not a fact until a scientist measured the light during an eclipse. <br /> Posted by bechcube</DIV></p><p>You started this when you challenged us to "disprove" your theory. It is not about proof but rather about the ability of a theory to make accurate predictions - a theory that can accurately describe different aspects of the universe around us.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[bechcube]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Before trying to define your beliefs (and I am not sure beliefs is the right word, as science isn't about "believing", it is about coming to conclusions based on evidence) you should understand the mainstream view. Lots of people has been looking into this subject already, for hundreds or thousands of years. We have the accumilated knowledge of mankind to look at, should we ignore it? If everyone ignored that which had gone before, we would not have gotten very far. Other "protrusions" would be elsewhere on the Brane, I would think. Unless you are talking of multiple protrusions in the same place on the Brane (how would that work?). Therefore any other universes would be separate "Brane-worlds". If we can only see a small part of our whole universe how do you expect us to be able to see a separate universe?The bottom line for your "Theory of Everying" is it is up to you to prove its worth. Is it better at making predictions about what we should see than the current mainstream theory? By better predictions I mean either predict more things we can check, or predict the things we already checked with greater accuracy. That is the only way your theory would ever be taken seriously.&nbsp; <br />Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV></p><p>SpeedFreek:</p><p>Try multiple protrusions in our Brane colliding with another Brane. Would that resulting "''Bang" not be seen in our universe. Think about it.</p><p>Further, if you review item 2 of my theory, I propose, among others,&nbsp;that a simple measurement of the local area of a gamma ray burst would determine whether or not the 3 degree temperature is greater there than the immediate&nbsp;area. I am hoping that someone with interest and use of the gamma ray satellite will take the challenge and make the measurement.<br /></p>

 

[bechcube]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I was going to write some sort of involved response, but what is the point?&nbsp; You have no idea what you are talking about and&nbsp;don't even realize the implications of saying things like the mass of the electrons and protons currently used are wrong.&nbsp; You appear to&nbsp;have delusions of grandeur - I think you should just go ahead and enjoy your belief that you have the ANSWER.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br />Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>orgin:If you read my theory, you would see that the calculations of the electron, proton and neutron masses&nbsp;are within three significant figures of the accepted values. Questioning 3rd, and above decimal places is hardly "delusions of grandeur" as they are spoken of as being questionabl in the standard model.<br /></p>

 

[bechcube]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well, I am. The theory of the evolution of species applies only to life and it is the survival of the best fitted to their environment. &nbsp;If you are now referring to how galaxies "evolve", which is a different kind use of the word evolution, then they evolve subject to the laws of physics, which are assumed to be the same throughout the universe. You might think of it like this - they "evolve" in the manner that best fits the laws of physics in their environment, the universe. You started this when you challenged us to "disprove" your theory. It is not about proof but rather about the ability of a theory to make accurate predictions - a theory that can accurately describe different aspects of the universe around us.&nbsp; <br />Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV></p><p>SpeedFreek:</p><p>Where, in the universe, do you see the creation applying only to one aspect of creation?</p><p>Further, evolutionist say the Rex dinosaur remained the same over millions of years. How did we go from amoebae-monkeys-humans in the same time period but Rex did not change?<br /></p>

 

[origin]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>origin:Are you arguing that 1x10>{(-331/3)+(-331/3+)+(-331/2)} does not = 1x10>-100? <br />Posted by bechcube</DIV></p><p>No, I am arguing that high school algebra combined with&nbsp;the complete lack of understanding basic physics = your theory.<br />But you believe so - enjoy and&nbsp;bask in your ignorance.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Try multiple protrusions in our Brane colliding with another Brane. Would that resulting "''Bang" not be seen in our universe. Think about it. <br /> Posted by bechcube</DIV></p><p>No it would not be seen, as far as I can tell, from my scant knowledge of M-Theory. I'm not even sure if protrusions is the correct term, as I thought the universe was simply formed where 2 Branes intersect. If these Branes also intersect somewhere else on their "surface", I would assume that would form a separate universe to our own.</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Where, in the universe, do you see the creation applying only to one aspect of creation? <br /> Posted by bechcube</DIV></p><p>You are talking about natural selection, if you refer to survival of the best fitted. You are talking about mutations that are beneficial to a form of life, that help it succeed in its current environment. The more successful a life-form, the more likely it will pass on the beneficial mutation. Thus, the best fitted life-form for its environment is the one that does the best. What has this to do with galaxies?</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Further, evolutionist say the Rex dinosaur remained the same over millions of years. How did we go from amoebae-monkeys-humans in the same time period but Rex did not change? <br /> Posted by bechcube</DIV></p><p>Firstly we did not go from amoeba to human in that period. You really don't seem to understand evolution at all. We probably evolved from small mammals that were alive towards the end of the reign of the dinosaurs. The rex dinosaurs stayed the same for so long because they were the dominant species and were the best fitted for their environment during a period when the environment was pretty stable. When the environment changed radically, the dinosaurs all died out, as they were too specialised. We evolved from mammals that were left behind at that time, mammals that could now proliferate as the dinosaurs were finally out of the way. </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[bechcube]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No it would not be seen, as far as I can tell, from my scant knowledge of M-Theory. I'm not even sure if protrusions is the correct term, as I thought the universe was simply formed where 2 Branes intersect. If these Branes also intersect somewhere else on their "surface", I would assume that would form a separate universe to our own.&nbsp;You are talking about natural selection, if you refer to survival of the best fitted. You are talking about mutations that are beneficial to a form of life, that help it succeed in its current environment. The more successful a life-form, the more likely it will pass on the beneficial mutation. Thus, the best fitted life-form for its environment is the one that does the best. What has this to do with galaxies?&nbsp;Firstly we did not go from amoeba to human in that period. You really don't seem to understand evolution at all. We probably evolved from small mammals that were alive towards the end of the reign of the dinosaurs. The rex dinosaurs stayed the same for so long because they were the dominant species and were the best fitted for their environment during a period when the environment was pretty stable. When the environment changed radically, the dinosaurs all died out, as they were too specialised. We evolved from mammals that were left behind at that time, mammals that could now proliferate as the dinosaurs were finally out of the way. &nbsp; <br />Posted by SpeedFreek</DIV></p><p>SpeedFreek:</p><p>Good for you. At least you have a theory outside of the mainstream</p><p>&nbsp;I can understand how biology was led astray in believing that single cell entities changed into fish and then into amphibians.</p><p>They lost me when they taught that the fish left the oceans and embarked upon land.</p><p>I can understand fish for the seas, monkeys for the trees and man for the land. Beyond that, I loose reality.</p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p>

 

[bechcube]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No, I am arguing that high school algebra combined with&nbsp;the complete lack of understanding basic physics = your theory.But you believe so - enjoy and&nbsp;bask in your ignorance.&nbsp; <br />Posted by origin</DIV></p><p>orgin: That was a game clean up. I expected better.<br /></p>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>SpeedFreek:Good for you. At least you have a theory outside of the mainstream&nbsp;I can understand how biology was led astray in believing that single cell entities changed into fish and then into amphibians.They lost me when they taught that the fish left the oceans and embarked upon land.I can understand fish for the seas, monkeys for the trees and man for the land. Beyond that, I loose reality.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by bechcube</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;<br /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/13/666b0f52-dc76-4bbf-8dfe-48c5ec4801cb.Medium.jpg" alt="" /><br /> <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/7/8/c7132689-1959-439f-8893-592dddc507f3.Medium.jpg" alt="" /></p><p>Nope, my view is the mainstream view as far as I know. You have shown here that you do not understand the theory of evolution, and yet you seem very sure it must be wrong, even though you do not actually understand it. Did you know that birds seem to have evolved from reptiles? Did you know that whales seem to have evolved from mammals that once walked the land?</p><p>By the way, this has nothing to do with galaxies disintegrating into GRBs at the edge of the universe.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Dr. Rocket: I trust that you do have the education to earn the title you are using. If not, it would explain why you have difficulty grasping elemental ideas.I suspect that you are&nbsp;a proponent&nbsp;of the theory of evolution. This theory purposes that all creation evolves into survival of the fittest. If you are, have you considered the question of why, if everything evolves, that at a distant of 13-14 bly's the creations are the same as in all other areas of the universe?Further, it has been noted that my arguments are "Woo,Woo, etc..However, my post is presented as a theory, not fact and therefore does not require proof by the initiator of the theory. That is left open to other educated interested scientist to delve into. Example: Dr. Einstein proposed that light curved when passing through an area of space-time which&nbsp;was allegedly&nbsp;curved by the presence of mass.It was a theory, not a fact until a scientist measured the light during an eclipse. <br />Posted by bechcube</DIV><br /><br />And exactly what evidence do you have that the "creations" in the distant Universe are the same as here? I'll answer, None at all. </p><p>So your point (whatever it was) has no merit at all.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[bechcube]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>And exactly what evidence do you have that the "creations" in the distant Universe are the same as here? I'll answer, None at all. So your point (whatever it was) has no merit at all. <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV>MeteorWayne:</p><p>The deep sky photos by the Hubble showing galaxies calculated to be 12billions ly's distant exist. Of course, you can say science is wrong, that's your privilege.<br /></p>

 

[SpeedFreek]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>MeteorWayne:The deep sky photos by the Hubble showing galaxies calculated to be 12billions ly's distant exist. Of course, you can say science is wrong, that's your privilege. <br /> Posted by bechcube</DIV></p><p>MeteorWayne was, of course, correct.</p><p>From the digital universe wiki:</p><p>"Galaxies at high redshift often have peculiar shapes, in contrast to the well-developed spiral and elliptical galaxies seen in the local universe. At redshifts greater than 3 or 4, corresponding to when the universe was less than 2 billion years old, galaxies are primarily starburst systems."</p><p>We have seen galaxies with redshifts up to z=7, whose light has been travelling for 12.9 billion years, but they don't look anything like the well developed galaxies we see around us locally. The Hubble deep sky image shows galaxies <em><strong>up to</strong></em> 12 billion ly's away, but most of them are a lot closer than that.</p><p>You do not understand the science that you are trying to interpret in your own way.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>